Prosecutors are accelerating the search and seizure of the so-called 'Ministry of Industry's blacklist' investigation.
The change of the heads of public institutions appointed by the previous administration after this government change is not just a problem for the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.
In the case of the Ministry of Environment, the blacklist allegation has already been confirmed as true, and the Supreme Court has confirmed the conviction.
Through a few questions, we have summarized the suspicion of the blacklist of the heads of government public institutions.
1. How did the 'blacklist allegation' investigation begin?
It started with the revelations of Kim Tae-woo, a former member of the special inspection team at the Blue House.
As a former prosecutor's investigator, he worked as a member of the special inspection team of the Blue House's senior civil affairs office immediately after the inauguration of the Moon Jae-in government.
Former investigator Kim asserts that there was an instruction to create a so-called 'blacklist' in the Office of the Chief of Civil Affairs at the time of the Chief of Homeland, and that the content included in this was about 330 public institutions across the country and about 200 heads of public institutions with a pro-government attitude.
Since then, the opposition parties have gathered statements against the heads of public institutions that have been replaced in this government, and have filed complaints with the prosecution several times in 2019.
The ministries accused by the opposition are not only the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Industry, but also the Prime Minister's Office, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Unification and the Ministry of Veterans Affairs.
2. How did the prosecution decide?
It is difficult to be convicted of abuse of power just because the Blue House and the government did not respect the tenure of the heads of public institutions after the change of government and 'printed out' them.
According to the investigation team of the Eastern District Prosecutors' Office in 2019, there was a disagreement within the prosecution as to whether prosecution was possible because there was no precedent for the resignation of the head of a public institution and the abuse of power.
In this situation, the 'Ministry of Environment blacklist' case became a 'leading case'.
Former Environment Minister Kim Eun-kyung and former Blue House Balanced Personnel Secretary Shin Mi-sook conspired to try to replace the heads of six agencies affiliated with the Ministry of Environment.
Although former Environment Minister Kim was found guilty of the first trial, the prosecution did not conduct an investigation into the remaining blacklist allegations for the past three years.
Even in the case of the same blacklist allegation, the prosecution's investigation proceeded in three directions.
The Ministry of Environment case was the only one indicted, and the Supreme Court found a guilty verdict in January of this year.
On the other hand, in the case of the Ministry of Veterans Affairs and the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, the case was not prosecuted.
In the case of the director of the Independence Hall, where the Ministry of Veterans Affairs had requested the resignation, the prosecution said the abuse of power was due to the reason that "the term of office has expired" and the replacement of the director of the Nuclear Safety and Technology Institute by the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission "there were continuous demands for resignation due to various problems." I saw that it didn't work.
The rest of the cases of the Ministry of Industry and the Prime Minister's Office, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Unification, and the Ministry of Education were kept in a 'cabinet' for three years after only some reference investigations were conducted in 2019.
3. Why did you start the search and seizure of the Ministry of Industry?
In 2019, an official of the investigation team at the time saw that "there have been numerous changes of heads of public institutions since the change of government.
Unlike other ministries, in the case of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, on September 8, 2017, the presidents of the four power generation companies under the Ministry were collectively submitted to resign.
In addition, on May 30, 2018, four presidents including the Trade Insurance Corporation, the District Heating Corporation, the Korea Energy Corporation, and the Mineral Resources Corporation collectively submitted their resignations.
The difference is that in the case of the Ministry of Veterans Affairs and the National Security Agency, the Ministry of Unification and the Ministry of Education, the resignation of the heads of public institutions was submitted one by one, whereas the Ministry of Industry and Trade had several presidents replaced at once.
An official from the investigation team at the time said, "The head of a public institution may be replaced for various reasons, such as personal abuse, management problems, or the expiration of the term of office, but the 'batch resignation' shows that the government replaced the head of the agency in a print-out manner."
He added, "Even in 2019, the investigation into the case of the Ministry of Industry was proceeding to the extent that it was possible to issue a search and seizure warrant."
4. Why did the compulsory investigation begin after 3 years?
Why did the prosecution bring up the industrial blacklist case that had been sleeping in the cabinet for three years?
In an official response, the Eastern District Prosecutor's Office said, "As the Supreme Court found guilty of the Ministry of Environment's blacklist case, we are proceeding with the investigation in accordance with the law and principles."
However, in the case of the Ministry of Environment, the minister was already convicted in the first trial in 2021, and the minister was arrested.
“Even at the time of indictment of the blacklist case by the Ministry of Environment, there were many objections in the command line of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office,” said a prosecutor familiar with the blacklist investigation.
The fact that the prosecution suddenly launched a forced investigation into the case three years ago after a change of government and confirmation after the election was over can be seen as a political investigation on the surface.
People's Power Rep. Kim Do-eup, who led the accusation in 2019, pointed out, "This investigation is far too late at the latest. As it has been delayed, the investigation should proceed regardless of the rank or level without any political consideration."
5. How should we view the sudden investigation after the change of government was confirmed?
I would like to add my personal opinion to this question.
The reason why the prosecution's official answer to 'investigation according to law and principle' is empty is because of the events that have taken place in the prosecution over the past few years.
At the time of investigating the case of the 'Ministry of Environment's blacklist' that revealed the current government's ignorance, the leadership of the investigation team at the Eastern District Prosecutors' Office left the prosecution after being relegated.
Prosecutors who conducted investigations that pointed the tip of their swords toward the government, such as the investigation of former Justice Minister Cho Kuk, were likewise unable to avoid relegation.
As a result, investigations targeting the government, like the 'Ministry of Industry Blacklist Case', were sleeping in a cabinet.
“Tiger-type” prosecutors who point their swords at living power are demoted or take off their clothes, and when power is alive, they look and crush them. Distrust will only grow bigger.
In particular, in the era of a president who served as a prosecutor-general, more transparency and fairness will be required of the prosecution.
(Graphic: Chae Ji-woo / Production: D Content Planning Department)